Okay, here's your chance to back up your purge rhetoric

[jpgray]

Is it better to have only solid Dems in Congress who will all oppose nasty policy all the time, but lack the numbers to ensure a filibuster? Or is it better to have a larger corps that can successfully filibuster on a few of the most key issues, but will contain members that support and enable some nasty GOP policies? It's certainly a dilemma, and arguments may be made for either side.

[AndyTiedye]

1. But It's The Wishy-Washy Democrats Who Vote for Cloture

and prevent us from filibustering when we should be.

Why do they always cave in? Is it because they think that the theocracy
will let them stay in office if they don't make any waves? Are they
afraid of being Wellstoned?

Will we even be capable of mounting a filibuster against Ashcroft
or Gonzales when they nominate one of them as Associate Justice?

[jpgray]

2. As I said, those Dems will cave on some nasty issues

But for something like Social Security, we will be able to filibuster. On nasty past nominees like Estrada, we have used filibuster ability admirably. Is it worth it to lose the ability to stop such things from going through while gaining a solid bloc of opposition with no gaps?

[AndyTiedye]

5. Of Course It's Better To Be Able to Filibuster

It's just that it remains to be seen if we still can.

[jpgray]

10. If they use the nuclear option

It becomes easier to say that wishy washy senators need to shape up or get out--while we still have the filibuster I'm not so sure.

[Enquiringkitty]

3. We have to have the wishy-washy ones to negotiate on the , so called

"bi-partisan" issues. They have to have them on their side too or we would never get anything done.

[FlemingsGhost]

4. Dems can't seem to beat the GOP, why not try ousting their own?

:shrug:

[bpilgrim]

6. how many does it take to filibuster? 1 motivated Dem.

besides i think your premise is flawed...

i would argue that if Dem's stood for something, weTHEpeople, there would be a whole lot more of'em, and we wouldn't need to filibuster.

FYI: reTHUGs are about to make the whole filibuster thing null&void.
it's so 910.

peace

[jpgray]

7. It takes forty to defeat a cloture vote and sustain a filibuster

If it's only one Senator, they can vote to end the debate on a bill and force a vote so long as the cloture passes with at least sixty votes.

[Gold Metal Flake]

8. These two are our only choices?

Another false choice. I get enough of these from pukes.

False choice one: Losing.

False choice two: Losing.

Nice.

[jpgray]

9. Explain to me how we get forty plus unified Democrats in the Senate

Lots of people would like to know.

[Gold Metal Flake]

13. Elect more and better Democrats.

Explain to me how "status quo" and "less than status quo" are our only options.

[UdoKier]

11. False dichotomy.

Better to beat the wishy washy dems into shape and make them do the right thing when it counts.

[jpgray]

12. How do you do that? (nt)